The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

04 Mar 2015 5:58:21am

Text

PreviousMessage

"I'm not the one proposing a deity as a way of avoiding the admittedly difficult problem of morality."

I'm not proposing anything, I'm inquiring as to what logical basis can exist for a non-religious morality. You are correct when you say I cannot prove my beliefs scientifically. I haven't tried and am not asking you to accept my position, only to validate yours.

I have never demanded a scientific standard of justification for moral beliefs, except of those who demand it themselves. I accept faith-based beliefs of those who concede that such is the basis. For those who reject faith as a basis for belief and demand rational validation, I do expect them to show some intellectual consistency.

""The reason I find this an unsatisfactory argument for an non-religious morality is because there is no reason or need to even it moral at all."

No reason? Would you actually prefer to live in a society where murder wasn't illegal or immoral?"

Allow me to clarify my original post. There is a typo in what i wrote. That last sentence should read "... or need to even CALL it moral at all."

The issue I was pointing out here is a sort of "Ockham's Razor" in that if you derive your sense of morality only from emotion and self-interest then that is fair enough, but that there is then no need, purpose or validation to call it morality. It simply is what it is - emotion and/or self-interest.

"I have a definite preference for living in a world where I'm less likely to be stabbed. You probably share that view. If you want to classify that as arbitrary, that's fine. But I prefer it, and so do you."

You're right, I do share that view. That is still an appeal to self-interest, appeal to fear, appeal to emotion and a rather crowded logical fallacy. I don't have a problem with the specifics of your moral code, I just can't see how it can be logically validated in a non-religious context.

That you insist on focusing on my lack of scientific, non-anecdotal evidence for my own religious beliefs is a distraction. I haven't claimed otherwise. I'm only looking to understand whether there is a validation for an objective non-religious morality that I haven't encountered yet or whether this is a case in which atheists simply resort to belief without evidence.

I have no problem with your lack of evidence, it's no affront to my worldview, but it does seem such a challenge to the worldview of many atheists. I'm just looking for some intellectual consistency.